(Please welcome back John Dean to the FDL Book Salon who is here to discuss his book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. It's also his birthday -- jh)
In 2002, in Worse Than Watergate, Dean explored the Bush Administration’s penchant for secrecy for secrecy’s sake. In 2006, in Conservatives Without Conscience, he wrote about the Republican party’s drift into right-wing extremism, steeped in authoritarianism.
Now, with a little more than a year left in the current Administration, Dean focuses a wide-angle lens on the state of our government, contending that President Bush and the Republican Party have mangled it to the point that it no longer serves the American people.
Dean is not without hope–he lays out a plan for how the next administration can fix the mess. However, he also ends this book with a warning: Since the Republicans have veered dangerously off-course, only the Democrats can be trusted to repair the damage done.
Dean argues that the Republicans have made a wreck of all three branches of government–Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary. His focus is not on Republican policies of the last seven years, but rather on how Republicans have neglected, or mangled beyond recognition, the lawful and legitimate processes built into our Constitution and laws.
Compromised processes, Dean argues, inexorably lead to bad policy.
Dean assails Congress for its virtual total neglect of a process that is at the heart of the doctrine of the separation of powers–oversight of the Executive branch. In addition, he faults Congress for ignoring the reports of its own General Accountability Office (GAO), condoning the White House’s insistence on secrecy, and tolerating (and outright supporting, in some cases) Bush Administration policies that have given us Iraq and a host of supposed “anti-terrorism” measures that reject the basic principles not only of our Constitution, but those of international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
In addition, Dean faults the Republicans and their authoritarian tactics for seeing to it that Congress doesn’t get much done. (Dean believes, however, that the atmosphere is more bipartisan since the Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections.)
Dean is not without hope: Our government can be fixed, but, at this point in time, only by a Democratic administration. He believes, as he wrote in Without Conscience, that the core of today’s Republican Party is authoritarian in character, and dedicated to making big corporations richer through the creation of bigger and more government. In this sense, the Party has utterly betrayed its traditional Republican small-government ideals.
Dean is quick to point out that we don’t need government reform to fix broken government; we just need to have people in power who are willing to play by the rules. Having laid out how Republicans don’t “play fair” with the processes of government, using their own processes to benefit themselves and special interests, Dean argues that we must insist that government run the way it is supposed to.
Congressional representatives are supposed to act for the good of their constituents, not their parties. There are rules for how proposed legislation is supposed to make its way through committees, and to votes. The President is the President of all the people and he (or she) is supposed to uphold the laws and Constitution, not become a potentate who rules in secret and flouts the laws with signing statements meant to make them merely optional.
Federal judges are supposed to decide constitutional issues and interpret the law. Thus, judges who march in lock-step under any ideological banner are anathema to the principle of the judiciary as a constitutionally co-equal branch of government. A judiciary captured by the Executive’s party, and acting in disregard of the law, is simply a branch of the White House.
Dean states what anyone who listens to the Republican candidates’ debates already knows: Every current Republican candidate (except Libertarian Ron Paul) would, if elected, continue down the path of Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II and appoint judicial fundamentalists who will, in fact, legislate from the bench (the very sin Republicans accuse Democratic-appointed judges of committing). These jurists will shape the law to benefit special interests and diminish individual rights.
(Elaine Cassel writes for Findlaw)
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Mr. Dean, it is such an honor to have you here at FDL. Per Jane’s post yesterday, your willingness to respond so thoughtfully and insightfully to so many of us, made an indelible impression. For your vigorous and extremely articulate critiques of the Bush administrations, our nation owes you a great debt.
I purchased my copy of BROKEN GOVERNMENT today (through FDL), so my question, if you care to respond, has to do with Irving Scooter Libby. In light of Bush’s use of his authority to commute Libby’s sentence, is Libby’s only excuse for not testifying the possibility that the Wilson’s will win their appeal in their civil case? Could Congress compel Libby’s testimony? Marcy Wheeler (aka emptywheel) blogged these questions some time ago as examples of things the American people have every right to know: “Did Bush ask Libby to take the lead in responding to Wilson’s allegations on June 9, 2003? Did Bush unilaterally declassify Valerie Plame’s covert identity and the CIA report on Wilson’s trip? Did Cheney ask Bush to do this? When and where did Libby tell Cheney that he was going to testify to the FBI that he had forgotten Plame’s identity until he learned it anew from Tim Russert? Have Cheney and Libby ever discussed ensuring that Libby would avoid all jail time?”
It’s always a great to see you on COUNTDOWN.
Elaine! John Dean! Welcome!
Thank you for joining us again, Mr. Dean. And thank you so much for this third in your unintended trilogy; I fervently hope there will not be a need for an unintended fourth in this series.
Welcome
Welcome Mr. Dean.
You have written about the “impeachment” of former Bush administration officials for their “alleged” crimes due to the harm done and so that they are unable to roll back into any future administrations.
Would Ari Fleisher, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser be candidates for impeachment?
Who do you think most highly qualifies for impeachment?
Welcome, John and Elaine. And happy birthday, John. Thanks so much for being here and sharing it with us.
Welcome
I have a feeling FDL will be seeing record high traffic. The server seems to be struggling already.
Happy Birthday, John, may you have many more. Thank you for all you do.
Welcome John and Happy Birthday.
You feel like an old friend here.
Mr. Dean, Have any of the Democratic candidates talked to you about fixing our broken government?
Welcome everyone, to the Salon and welcome and a very special welcome and …. happy birthday… to our special guest and author, John Dean. John needs no introduction to most of you, I am sure. Former counsel to the president and now author and Findlaw columnist, he has just published his third book about the Bush Administration.
John, this administration has provided you with plenty to write about. Tell us how you came to write Broken Government.
Hippo Birdies Mr Dean and welcome to FDl! Thanks for coming by on your day and talking to us.
Did you ever think there would be an administration that made the Nixon admin look like it was filled with Constitutional scholars?
Where do you think the genesis of what we are dealing with is? IMNSHO, a lot of it traces back to the Ford pardon of Nixon. That action allowed a few occurrences that we are paying for today:
1) The pardon set the precedent that crimes could been gotten away with
2) The pardon allowed the noise machine to pretend that Nixon had done nothing wrong, it was all politics as usual, and everybody does it.
3) The pardon was used preemptively to avoid punishment for crimes with Iran/Contra and today and many of the same players have been involved in all of the above.
Thank you again for your time today.
Hello and Welcome! Currently the Supremes are composed of seven Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees. How many of those currently serving might need replacing in the next five years?
We are waiting for John to join us. Did anyone of you have browser problems?
I had some problems getting onto the page, but it seems to be better now.
Sorry about the multiple same comments….having browser problems
Mr. Dean I had the pleasure of meeting you in Phoenix at the ACLU panel discussion soon after your last visit to the lake…. Thank you for joining us here today.
welcome john dean and wishing a joyous birthday! just finished listening to your recent speech…..most enlightening tho not really surprising..now to read and be further enlightened :o) for sure
Elaine Cassel @ 16
John will be here in a bit, having browser problems too. Firefox appears to work but IE is buggy.
Our tech people are working on it.
Some of you have already posted good questions and comments. I am sure John will have much to say. Speaking of the Supreme Court, John’s new book focuses on the broken processes of govt. It seems like we got to where we are today with a process problem–the Supreme Court stopping the recount. I hope John will comment on this.
Welcome, Mr. Dean. It seems everything the Republics have done to change the process of lawmaking is unAmerican. They don’t care what the Founding Fathers established and the principles behind it.
How can we make it clear to DC and the media that this is the biggest problem we face, and that we intend to restore the balance and transparency?
And happy birthday!
Did seem that there were problems getting on better now
Happy Birthday Mr. Dean. You and Olbermann have been doing a great job explaining the legal issues, with his questions and your comprehensible and comprehensive answers. I look forward to reading your book.
John will be here in a bit, having browser problems too. Firefox appears to work but IE is buggy.
Our tech people are working on it.
I had to go to Firefox. Could not get in on Internet Explorer. Did anyone else have this problem?
Mr. Dean, welcome back to the lake.
I’m in the last throes, if you will, of your book - and thanks for the voluminous notes - and you have provided me with a answers to a couple of significant issues I’ve wondered about over the years.
First is the way in which their (in my non-lawyerly view)wacky interpretations become law: Law Reviews. I had NO IDEA there was no peer review. It makes sense now, the self-referential circular arguments, but it never did before. But now some of the wackier ideas are worming their way deep into precedent.
Can we stop the worms? How?
TexasEllen @ 15
As a follow on to Ellen, I’ve read that it is legal to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices and that it has been done in the past to correct imbalance. Would you support this?
Happy Birthday Mr. Dean. You and Olbermann have been doing a great job explaining the legal issues, with his questions and your comprehensible and comprehensive answers. I look forward to reading your book.
Order it right away from Amazon!
Welcome John and congratulations on your new book.
Last time you were here you said Congress “has lost its institutional pride.” Do you see any changes for the better since then?
Thank you.
Mr. Dean thanks for coming back, and thank you for sharing your views and expertise on our constitution and the state of our country.
This week ACLU spokeswoman Liz Rose heard from Senate sources that an unreleased draft of a bill contains provisions granting “retroactive immunity” to telecommunications companies that turned over communications of subscribers to the NSA without warrants between 2001 and 2007.
FDL’s Christy Hardin Smith published a version of Rose’s email.
…”the Senate bill (Committee draft) does contain immunity/amnesty for the telecom companies…Including retroactive immunity for anything they’ve done wrong in cooperating in illegal domestic spying for the past six years.”
What do you think about the possibility of “retroactive immunity” for these companies?
We have yet to witness Senator Rockerfeller (now that Republican Senator Pat Roberts is out of the way) hold anyone accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. I don’t believe that Phase II of the Senate Selection Committee on Intelligence was ever completed?
Americans and others around the world are hungry to witness the US congress hold people and companies ACCOUNTABLE for their “alleged” crimes.
Why would Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Senator Jay Rockerfeller and other congress members roll over to these companies?
Great questions on the Supreme Court. Certainly, that is on the minds of many of us.
Hello, FDL.
I was unable to get in with my Explorer but made it with Firefox.
First, I want to thank Jane, and the FDL community, for inviting me back. Also to thank Elaine Castle as well, who I only know by her fine columns at FindLaw, as well as her always perceptive book reviews:-) Again a note of caution: while I am a very fast self-taught touch typist no one in the world will every hire me for that job because my speed far exceeds my accuracy — way too many typos when the smoke clears from my screen. So I apologize for typos at the outset but I will try to slow down and be careful.
An appropriate place for me to begin may be to report that when writing an afterword to Conservatives Without Conscience, for the paperback edition, the first thing that came to mind was my visit to the FDL Book Salon, so I opened that closing section of the paperback edition with the following comments, which I have placed in italics:
The reactions to this book far exceeded my hopes, and the response has been absolutely thrilling. Traditionally, an author never really knew for certain if his message was conveyed clearly. Most of my own personal interaction with readers came when doing signings or giving lectures, which typically occurred too soon after publication for any¬one to have had an opportunity to read the book. But that is chang¬ing with the Internet. For example, Jane Hampsher at Firedoglake .com invited me to her FDL Book Salon on Sunday, September 3, 2006, several months after Conservatives Without Conscience’s publica¬tion.* (*See FDL Book Salon at Conservatives Without Conscience, FDL Book Salon) It was a fascinating session. Jane had suggested I spend about an hour responding to questions posted by her readers, but when lit¬erally hundreds of thoughtful comments and interesting questions poured in, I found myself sitting at my keyboard for five hours.
My first clue that this would be an interesting experience came the preceding week, when the host for my FDL Salon appearance, Glenn Greenwald, posted his introduction of Conservatives Without Con¬science. Glenn is an attorney, author, and Salon’s political blogger, and his piece was one of the first reader responses I read. He nailed the point of the book perfectly, stating many of its points better than I had. In my own reading of books I prefer that the author not treat me as a simpleton and over-explain things, for I grow bored quickly; I fig¬ure readers of my books probably feel the same. Among the most dif¬ficult decisions I find myself making as a writer are how much to explain and how much to assume the readers already know. Having a good editor–which I do–who is not as steeped in the subjects I write about as am I helps greatly. There were a number of points in Conservatives Without Conscience where I had tried not to over-elaborate, and I was delighted that Glenn (and, as I learned from later mail, others) understood my aims perfectly. His points are thoughts I hope all readers might draw from the book, so I find them worth quoting: “The most significant contribution Dean makes to understanding the political forces which have dominated our country for the last five years is that he emphasizes and illuminates the psychological impulses underlying the Bush movement. Dean documents that the ‘conserva¬tive’ movement is composed of various factions who actually share very little in common in the way of political beliefs and could not come close to agreeing on a core set of political principles and ideals which define their movement. In the absence of a set of core, shared beliefs, what, then, binds them and maintains their allegiance to this political movement?” He continued [and the following is the quote from Glenn]:
The answer Dean provides is the shared hatred of common ene¬mies. And their collective attacks on those enemies have become the conservative movement’s defining attribute. And that is suf¬ficient to maintain allegiance because, argues Dean, what Bush followers crave more than anything else is submission to a pow¬erful authority as a means of alleviating their fears of ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity. Ultimately, as Dean convincingly demonstrates, the characteris¬tic which defines the Bush movement, the glue which binds it to¬gether and enables and fuels all of the abuses, is the vicious, limitless methods used to attack and demonize the “Enemy,” which encompasses anyone–foreign or domestic—threatening to their movement. What defines and motivates this movement are not any political ideas or strategic objectives, but instead, it is the bloodthirsty, ritualistic attacks on the Enemy du jour—the Terrorist, the Communist, the Illegal Immigrant, the Secularist, and most of all, the “Liberal.”
[This is from pages 185 – 187 of Conservatives Without Conscience (CWC).]
Jane tells me that Glenn is finishing up the manuscript of his next book, which is always a demanding time for every author, so he was unable to lead another session. But we can all look forward to his next book. I read Glenn’s blog – not to mention his books – because they are well-informed, tightly reasoned, and nicely written. I had the pleasure of a brief visit with Glenn at YearlyKos in Chicago, where I also had a chance to visit with many from the FDL community, as Christy Hardin Smith reported.
Unlike my last visit with CWC, when the book had been out for many months and many FDL visitors had read it, Broken Government (BG) has only been out a few weeks, and is just starting to be discovered by readers. So I understand that many of you will not be familiar with the subject matter of the book, and I will proceed accordingly. Frankly, when my publisher – Viking – wanted to release this book at this time, rather than my original proposal for a Spring/Summer 2008 release, I thought it was too early. But I have come to change my mind. Worse Than Watergate (WTW) was published during the 2004 election year and CWC during the 2006 election year, I had envisioned a similar date for BG to come out during the 2008 election year. If I thought like Anne Coulter – but then I doubt many are capable of such thinking – I might have titled this book “If Republicans Had Brains They Would Not Have To Cheat To Win.” This is not to say that I have pulled any punches in explaining what Republicans are doing, but I do not much like the sensational, so it takes a bit longer for me to reach readers with hard facts. Thus, it is probably better this book came out well before the next election.
This book, however, is written with the 2008 election very much in mind. More specifically, I found it stunning that the Democrats gave Republicans a pass in 2004 and 2006 on their abuses of the democratic processes of government. On their cheating. Nonetheless, Democrats are allowing Republicans to game the system, and if Democrats don’t put this matter on the agenda in 2008 we are all in a heap of trouble. For this reason I plan to give every Democratic nominee a copy of the book. But only if the book is read widely will they too read it.
I am not a “Chicken Little, the sky falling” type, nor do I believe in alarmism. Yet I do write about problems I believe are serious and call for public attention. Never, when I returned to writing to honor a promise I had made to myself years earlier, did I think I would be writing political commentary, rather I thought I would be doing biography and history. But when others simply were ignoring situations that were so clear to me, I began cranking it out. WTW was about the excessive secrecy of the Bush/Cheney Administration and what it was hiding – at the time I wrote that book this secrecy was being ignored by the mainstream media. This, in turn, provoked me to pick up a project I had started earlier with the late Senator Barry Goldwater to understand what had become of the conservative movement and why. The answer, as set forth in CWC, was that authoritarian conservatives have captured the GOP – a fact that no conservative has refuted nor even challenged because the evidence is overwhelming. BG looks at what these authoritarians have done to the federal government – simply stated they have broken it when they have been in control. And they are doing so by manipulating the machinery and mechanics of government and politics.
I noticed this morning on my way to the salon a question from Dru who is unable to attend. The question is based on my last visit: “With regard to your description of J. Edgar Hoover; you say that Hoover ‘rigged the Warren Commission investigation in a manner that still colors the nation’s understanding of President Kennedy’s assassination.’ Would you explain what the persistent misperception continues to be?”
ANSWER: During my years in government I had more than one FBI insider tell me that Hoover greatly restricted the Kennedy assassination investigation rather than push for the full bore inquiry that would have run down every lead and answered all relevant questions. I was told that Hoover’s actions were believed due to his dislike of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. It was not that Hoover was part of a conspiracy rather that his indifference to a more complete investigation had given rise to many of the conspiracy theories that have emerged. Hoover, it seems, did not care who killed Kennedy, which at the time was not a federal crime. I don’t believe I used the word “misperception” rather I think American do understand that Hoover botched the investigation, and in varying degrees, many Americans understand that we do not have a full picture of what occurred. I am not into conspiracy theories but clearly we do not have all the fact that a timely and complete investigation would have produced.
With that, let me depart from botched government to Broken Government and your comments, questions and thoughts.
I just finished reading the book and the one place that jumped out at me was in the Second Branch when you cited Ted Kennedy and Steven Calabrisi and the independent agencies that ought not come under executive control. The quote specifically mentioned the FEC which, at this time is awaiting the confirmation of 4 commissioners including one known for election tampering and blocking the rights of people to vote.
Have you views about what is going on with the process ie, McConnel’s push to have them all voted in a block, and the consequences of either that or not having 4 new commissioners at all? I fear that this administration is not likely to want to hand over power and will try everything to rig the next election as they have the previous two.
Thanks for your patience everyone.
We are waiting to John to come in…I hear he has the same browser problems I had.
I hope the five who inflicted this nation to the tender mercies of Bush/Cheney and the neocons, by halting the vote counting, wake up in a cold sweat (at least three times a week) wondering if God could possibly forgive them.
Welcome back, John Dean!
It says uptop that you claim,
I worry whether or not the Democrats can be trusted to do this. The current Democratic Congress really doesn’t seem all that excited about defending the Constitution. In fact, they seem *less* energized about this than Democrats during the Watergate era. At that time, it seemed like a groundswell of Constitutionalism rose up to such an extent that I thought it might be the national religion. Today, it seems, not so much.
Democrats seem more interested in building a veto-proof majority than defending the Constitution. Am I being myopic about this?
As part of the same question, I am also wondering about what you think of recent claims that we’re sliding towards Fascism?
Thanks for the work you’re doing on these questions!
Bob in HI
Welcome, John is here and will begin answering questions.
Welcome Sir!
Elaine Cassel @ 16
had big problems on Safari and switched to Firefox which is working just fine.
Elaine Cassel @ 16
I’m always in Firefox; however I get double posts in FF, so I have an IE something (adapter/fixer 0 thing) so I can stay in FF.
And no, I’m not technical.
Welcome Mr. Dean. Happy Birthday as well.
Elaine, I’ve enjoyed your writing for a few years now catching you at ‘Civil Liberties Watch.’
Welcome to FDL, John.
Just as Watergate was an intersection of corruption and incompetence, our current “War on Terror” appears the same.
Here’s a report on military contractors in Afghanistan.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar.....actors.htm
On one hand the American taxpayer is paying DynCorp to eraciate opium poppies, while at the same time paying USPI to smuggle heroin.
Do you think that electing Mark Penn of Burson-Marsteller (Hillary Clinton) would allow ANY favorable change in systemic problem, even though “the Democrats” would be in power?
Wordsmith @ 40
Thank you for the compliment. I am fortunate that often my guest columns appear on the days that John’s regular columns appear.
Mr Dean,
Thank-you for being such a patriot that you want to share your wisdoms with Americans. I am honored to be here to ask you this burning question I have had for awhile.
I am concerned about how we can get Democrats to play by the rules. It seems like they have already been doing that and are “trumped” by people who make up new rules as they go along and then yell, “sorry, you lost!” Or when someone plays by the “new” rules, people feign outrage and they are, “Shocked, shocked I tell you!” Impeachment seems to be the only way to get the message across that We The People do not approve of these tactics, but the Dems don’t even want to play by THAT rule they say it is “off the table.” I am discouraged and frustrated that Dems won’t even enforce the rules already there.
What can we do about this and will there be “retroactive” things that can be done after this administration gets out of office, or is during their term time the only chance we have to make them accountable?
Cat In Seattle
Good question, Cat in Seattle. I look forward to hearing how John can further assure us that the Dems will, indeed, make a difference.
QUESTIONS: In light of Bush’s use of his authority to commute Libby’s sentence, is Libby’s only excuse for not testifying the possibility that the Wilson’s will win their appeal in their civil case? Could Congress compel Libby’s testimony? Marcy Wheeler (aka emptywheel) blogged these questions some time ago as examples of things the American people have every right to know: “Did Bush ask Libby to take the lead in responding to Wilson’s allegations on June 9, 2003? Did Bush unilaterally declassify Valerie Plame’s covert identity and the CIA report on Wilson’s trip? Did Cheney ask Bush to do this? When and where did Libby tell Cheney that he was going to testify to the FBI that he had forgotten Plame’s identity until he learned it anew from Tim Russert? Have Cheney and Libby ever discussed ensuring that Libby would avoid all jail time?”
ANSWERS: I do not believe Libby has any excuse for not testifying, although Bush will claim executive privilege if not the state secrets privilege. I agree with Marcy that the outstanding questions should be answer. As I see Congress could force this issue and hold him in contempt if he failed to answer.
No. 3 - COMMENT: “I fervently hope there will not be a need for an unintended fourth in this series.”
REPLY: I too so hope. I would love to leave this genre and move on to biography and history.
Jane Hamsher @ 20
Internet Explorer is always buggy because it is the worst browser ever, just as Petraeus is the worst General ever. Even though I could not afford it, I just got a new iMac. Very sweet.
Welcome back to FDL, John. Thank you for the glass of iced tea and the lovely chat at YKos in Chicago — and for the continued scholarship on these issues and especially questions surrounding the rule of law.
Thanks so much for asking so many of the questions that need broader discussion. Thanks, too, to Elaine for the great intro today.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Dean. Do you think that perhaps impeachment is off the table so that criminals in the administration cannot be pardoned by Bush? Do you think that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will ever be tried for war crimes?
1. Firefox is clearly superior to IE.
2. It is such a privilege to observe this in real time. Mr. Dean, you have been a hero to me since I was a young boy and just wanted you to know how great it is to take part in a discussion with one of the truest patriots our country has had in modern times. Thank you.
No. 5 - QUESTIONS: “Would Ari Fleisher, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser be candidates for impeachment?
Who do you think most highly qualifies for impeachment?”
ANSWER: Any presidential appointee is subject to impeachment. I would put David Addington at the top of my list, because a simple majority vote after impeachment can bar that person from holding federal office. The thought of Addington coming back in an even high post is chilling.
Good question, Loo, about impeachment. But I wonder if the Dems have thought that far ahead or if they just don’t have the passion for the task? I would love to hear John’s comment on this.
John, can you address the issue of why the Dems aren’t pursuing impeachment? And would add Alberto Gonzales to the list?
J. Dean @ 45
I’m extremely concerned that even though Congress has the tool of inherent contempt in their kit, they are continually coming to the brink of using it and then backing off.
Sadly my alarm is more motivated by the dems not doing their job than by the repubs. antics. Do you know of any reasons why they are holding back and not following through on enforcing the subpoenaes that they have previously issued?
What part have Presidential “signing statements” played in our Broken Government?
No. 12 - QUESTION: “Have any of the Democratic candidates talked to you about fixing our broken government?”
ANSWER: Not really. That is the reason I plan to keep pounding the drum as long as necessary. While this is not the only issue it is too big an issue for the Democrats to again ignore.
Elaine Cassel @ 16
Elaine — thanks for hosting; excellent intro. In the third to last paragraph, is there a missing word in the second sentence. Let us know and we’ll fix.
Kathleen @ 55
Kathleen, in case John does not get to answer this, he has a huge section on this in the book.
imo the dems dont seem to be able to wrest control of congress from repug hands tho they “control” both houses….any opinions on why this is so mr dean?
Scarecrow @ 57
Thanks for noticing. I think it should simply read that “there are rules.”
Glad to see you back on the front page at FDL, Mr. Dean, though from your comments above it sounds as if you stop by here rather often at other times, too.
After examining the brokenness of government in each of the three branches, in which branch do you see the best chance for beginning the repair process? Judicial opinions that overturn the most egregious executive grasps from power? A return to meaningful legislative oversight? An uprising of dedicated (mainly career) executive branch employees against the overly politically-minded senior administration officials?
Most of all, do you see any chance of any of this happening before January 2009?
Question: With regard to the Bush Library, what do you think of Executive Order 13233, which “provides former Presidents with virtually unlimited powers to deny or grant access to documents generated under their administrations.”
Cliff Varnell @ 41
Yikes…please allow me to re-phrase the question.
Burson-Marsteller has a singularly foul record shilling for all manner of despotic people and policies; B-M’s CEO Mark Penn is widely regarded as Hillary’s “Rove.”
Why should we think a President Hillary Clinton is going to change the “culture of corruption,”
or any of the corporate Dems in power?
John — two questions which have come up repeatedly in the past couple of weeks are about the new AG nominee — Mukasey — and about the potential for retroactive immunity being handed over to telecomm companies for their involvement with the Bush Administration in the NSA’s domestic spying in violation of FISA maneuvers. I’d love your take on either or both issues — especially in the context of the Cheney work toward an unaccountable, unilateral executive and the need for restoration of checks, balances and the “advice and consent” issues in the Senate in particular.
No. 13 - QUESTION: “John, this administration has provided you with plenty to write about. Tell us how you came to write Broken Government.”
ANSWER: Hi Elaine. Let me thank you again for hosting and the nice work you do over at FindLaw. Very simply I wrote this book because the Democrats are letting the Republicans game the system. I have not set forth everything they have broken, rather the fundamental distortions of the democratic system that Democrats are tolerating, when they should be fighting them. It is not a prescriptive book rather a serious heads up to everyone who has been ignoring what is going on.
juslin @ 59
I hope John can answer this, but one factor is the use of the filibuster, which John mentions in the book. The “super majority” requirement means 60 votes needed if the other side filibusters. So unless the Dems get 60 votes in the Senate, I fear we may be in the same boat we are today. Am I right about that, John?
Elaine Cassel @ 53
And as you mentioned in the book there are clear cases of Justices lying in their confirmation hearings—Thomas, Renquist to name two. Is lying under oath in these circumstances an impeachable offense and is there any possibility that a justice—Thomas—could be impeached for having done so?
Thank you, John.
Your focus on democratic “processes” in this book was a brilliant idea.
TexasEllen @ 35
Maybe they (SCOTUS members who took away the count) can be impeached …
I am not one to wildly use this “weapon” without a great deal of thought, and I especially do not want someone to be used as a scapegoat while the rest do not face the consequences they caused. Still it is time SOMEONE get the message that the time for making up rules that do not apply to the Constitution is over. Now!
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
Just an appreciation. In Findlaw, Dean has been writing about the Bush Administration’s encroachments since about 2002, and he’s been a wonderful resource. My list of honest conservatives is very short, but Dean is on it.
It is obvious that many of us still feel a great deal of pain about what the Supreme Court did in 2000. John addresses the confirmation process in great detail in this new book.
No. 14 - QUESTIONS: Did you ever think there would be an administration that made the Nixon admin look like it was filled with Constitutional scholars? Where do you think the genesis of what we are dealing with is?
ANSWERS: I thought we had written the book on what not to do:-) Never did I dream that the GOP would take it as an opening chapter for their governing philosophy. The genesis of all this is very clear to me: authoritarian conservatism, which I addressed in CWC.
You all really must read “Conservatives Without Conscience.” It is an excellent primer on authoritarianism generally, and its role in Republican politics today.
I don’t have much to add here, but I do want to thank you, John, for writing this and for joining us here, again, today. I can’t wait to sink my teeth into the book.
Thanks also to Elaine and the whole Findlaw crew.
Folks, if you’re not familiar with Findlaw, please click on the ad on the upper right.
Mr Dean,
Thank you for reaching out in this way. My question is a simple one. What, in your estimation, are the Democrats in Congress afraid of?
Mr. Dean, how on earth was it possible for Paula Jones to sue Bill Clinton as a sitting President? I thought one couldn’t, under any circumstances, let alone a (IMO) minor civil matter that occurred before his election.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 63
I believe you’ve suggested extending the statute of limitations, John, which I wholeheartedly support.
Elaine Cassel @ 73
Many many of us did read it and heartily participated in the Book Salon that John Mentions in 32 above. It was/is an important book in laying out who we are dealing with.
Mr Dean,
Thank you for your insightful books, and your time here today.
With the latest revelations from the trial of the QWEST CEO that Bush/Cheney initiated some kind of secret spying program within weeks of his selection by the Supreme Court, do you think this will change the calculus about impeachment or at least really pressing the Administration for information, including the use of inherent contempt?
Going further into the NSA spying crimes, would you put it past Bush and Cheney to use any of their illegally-gathered info as some sort of blackmail against Democrats who could expose them? It sure seems that the Dems aren’t eager to expose details of NSA spying activity — could it be that they are protecting some dirty secrets of their own?
Thank you again.
John Dean “This book, however, is written with the 2008 election very much in mind. More specifically, I found it stunning that the Democrats gave Republicans a pass in 2004 and 2006 on their abuses of the democratic processes of government. On their cheating. Nonetheless, Democrats are allowing Republicans to game the system, and if Democrats don’t put this matter on the agenda in 2008 we are all in a heap of trouble.”
What do the Democrats have to gain by allowing the Republicans to “game the system”?
Why are they allowing this to continue?
No. 15 - QUESTION: Hello and Welcome! Currently the Supremes are composed of seven Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees. How many of those currently serving might need replacing in the next five years?
ANSWER: This is the big unspoken issue (so far) for 2008. As I write in chapter 3 of BG, the court is at the tipping point. There are three potential seats that could come up for the next president: Justices Stevens (age), Ginsburg (health) and Souter (disgust with the wingers).
I was wondering, in addition, if there were an example of political prosecution/persecution by the DOJ.
I hope John gets to give us his thoughts on this.
J. Dean @ 81
Might Justice Souter reconsider if the appointment is made by a dem president of someone not of the “fundamentalist” bent as you described the block of 4?
The link at 32 is broken.
Here’s the unbroken one. Conservatives Without Conscience, FDL Book Salon
No. 22 - QUESTION: How can we make it clear to DC and the media that this is the biggest problem we face, and that we intend to restore the balance and transparency?
ANSWER: By doing exactly what we are doing today, talking about it openly and hammer the point with candidates running for high office.
Thank you, Wordsmith. An awesome book. I grew up in a “fundamentalist Christian” home and I know authoritarianism!
John Dean,
I’ve ordered your newest book for all our local libraries. I found your Commonwealth Club of California speech to be very compelling.
Back in September, 2005, you wrote a column for Findlaw about using open-source research on the web for investigative journalism. Have you pursued the idea further since then?
Using “Camino” as a browser, as this thread still isn’t showing up on Safari…
No. 26 - QUESTION: I had NO IDEA there was no peer review. It makes sense now, the self-referential circular arguments, but it never did before. But now some of the wackier ideas are worming their way deep into precedent. Can we stop the worms? How?
ANSWER: I think if this subject came up from time to time at confirmation hearings, particularly when a lower court judge has cited such bogus scholarship, and is being nominated for a higher court. It strikes me if a nominee was shot down for such activity it would send a message. It would also bring into public focus the process I explain in the book, to which you refer.
Elaine Cassel @ 85
You’re very welcome. Yes - so did I, then converted to Catholicism, and now…..
I don’t always buy books. I started CWC and knew I had to buy it to mark it up. Knowing that, I’ll be purchasing ‘Broken Gov’t.’
Ed*ard Teller @ 87
ET, that link goes to a Commonwealth Club audio file.
Here’s a link to the FindLaw column.
No. 29 - QUESTION: Last time you were here you said Congress “has lost its institutional pride.” Do you see any changes for the better since then?
ANSWER: Yes, it is much improved under the Dems. Indeed, in my chapter on the legislative branch I explain how it is being repaired. The reason the public is again holding the Congress in lower and lower esteem is due in large part to the GOP effective use of obstructionism. It is, as I explain, how they won Congress in 1994. It appears they are again relying on this tactic.
Elaine Cassel @ 85
My neighbor, now Wiccan, too! She’s been a fountain of psychological insight, but nothing can top CWC, in my estimation.
Peterr @ 89